Author Response.

Tirupakuzhi Vijayaraghavan BK, Venkataraman R, Ramakrishnan N. Author Response. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(3):312.

Improving Antimicrobial Resistance Awareness Among Medical Students in India: The Sensitization of Medical Students on Antimicrobial Resistance (SOS-AMR) Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of an online educational intervention on improving knowledge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and stewardship among final-year medical students in Chennai, India. METHODS: This was a prospective 'before-after' study conducted across 5 medical colleges in Chennai, India. Participants who were final-year (fourth year) undergraduate medical students were administered a pretest to evaluate baseline knowledge. Students were then provided access to online educational material comprising 20 short lectures. Lectures were delivered by content experts and covered a range of topics which included basics of microbiology, fundamental concepts in AMR and stewardship, diagnosis and management of common infections, basics of antimicrobial pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and vaccination. Students were required to take a posttest at the end of these modules. Primary outcome was improvement in test scores from pretest baseline which was analyzed using a t test. A 30% improvement in the mean scores from baseline was predefined as a measure of success. RESULTS: A total of 599 students participated from 5 medical colleges among whom 339 (56.6%) were female participants; 542 (90.4%) students completed the posttest. Mean pretest score was 11.6 (maximum possible score of 25) (SD: 4.3) and the mean posttest score was 14.0 (SD: 4.6). Comparing pre and posttest scores, there was an improvement of 2.4 marks (20%) from the baseline (95% confidence interval: 1.9, 2.9) (P < .001). Improvement in scores was similar for male and female participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this before-after study evaluating the impact of an educational intervention on AMR among final-year medical students, there was an improvement in knowledge; however, the extent of improvement did not meet the predefined metric of success.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of higher dose dexamethasone by geographic region (Europe vs. India) in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia - a post hoc evaluation of the COVID STEROID 2 trial.

Background: In the COVID-STEROID 2 trial there was suggestion of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) between patients enrolled from Europe vs. India on the primary outcome. Whether there was HTE for the remaining patient-centred outcomes is unclear. Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the COVID-STEROID 2 trial, which compared 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, we evaluated HTE by geographical region (Europe vs. India) for secondary outcomes with analyses adjusted for stratification variables. Results are presented as risk differences (RDs) or mean differences (MDs) with 99% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values from interaction tests. Findings: There were differences in mortality at day 28 (RD for Europe -8.3% (99% CI: -17.7 to 1.0) vs. India 0.1% (99% CI: -10.0 to 10.0)), mortality at day 90 (RD for Europe -7.4% (99% CI: -17.1 to 2.0) vs. India -1.4% (99% CI: -12.8 to 9.8)), mortality at day 180 (RD for Europe -6.7% (99% CI: -16.4 to 2.9) vs. India -1.0% (99% CI: -12.3 to 10.3)), and number of days alive without life support at day 90 (MD for Europe 6.1 days (99% CI: -1.3 to 13.4) vs. India 1.7 days (99% CI: -8.4 to 11.8)). For serious adverse reactions, the direction was reversed (RD for Europe -1.0% (99% CI: -7.1 to 5.2) vs. India -5.3% (99% CI: -16.2 to 5.0). Interpretation: Our analysis suggests higher dose dexamethasone may have less beneficial effects for patients in India as compared with those in Europe; however, the evidence is weak, and this could represent a chance finding. Funding: None for this analysis. The COVID STEROID 2 trial was funded by The Novo Nordisk Foundation and supported by Rigshospitalet's Research Council.

Prevalence of frailty and association with patient centered outcomes: A prospective registry-embedded cohort study from India.

PURPOSE: We aimed to study the prevalence of frailty, evaluate risk factors, and understand impact on outcomes in India. METHODS: This was a prospective registry-embedded cohort study across 7 intensive care units (ICUs) and included adult patients anticipated to stay for at least 48 h. Primary exposure was frailty, as defined by a score ≥ 5 on the Clinical Frailty Scale and primary outcome was ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and resource utilization. We used generalized linear models to evaluate risk factors and model association between frailty and outcomes. RESULTS: 838 patients were included, with median (IQR) age 57 (42,68) yrs.; 64.8% were male. Prevalence of frailty was 19.8%. Charlson comorbidity index (OR:1.73 (95%CI:1.39,2.15)), Subjective Global Assessment categories mild/moderate malnourishment (OR:1.90 (95%CI:1.29, 2.80)) and severe malnourishment (OR:4.76 (95% CI:2.10,10.77)) were associated with frailty. Frailty was associated with higher odds of ICU mortality (adjusted OR:2.04 (95% CI:1.25,3.33)), hospital mortality (adjusted OR:2.36 (95%CI:1.45,3.84)), development of stage2/3 AKI (unadjusted OR:2.35 (95%CI:1.60, 3.43)), receipt of non-invasive ventilation (unadjusted OR:2.68 (95%CI:1.77, 4.03)), receipt of vasopressors (unadjusted OR:1.47 (95%CI:1.04, 2.07)), and receipt of kidney replacement therapy (unadjusted OR:3.15 (95%CI:1.90, 5.17)). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is common among critically ill patients in India and is associated with worse outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: CTRI/2021/02/031503.

Implementation of Recommendations on the Use of Corticosteroids in Severe COVID-19.

Importance: Research diversity and representativeness are paramount in building trust, generating valid biomedical knowledge, and possibly in implementing clinical guidelines. Objectives: To compare variations over time and across World Health Organization (WHO) geographic regions of corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19; secondary objectives were to evaluate the association between the timing of publication of the RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy) trial (June 2020) and the WHO guidelines for corticosteroids (September 2020) and the temporal trends observed in corticosteroid use by region and to describe the geographic distribution of the recruitment in clinical trials that informed the WHO recommendation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study of 434 851 patients was conducted between January 31, 2020, and September 2, 2022, in 63 countries worldwide. The data were collected under the auspices of the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Analyses were restricted to patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 (a subset of the ISARIC data set). Exposure: Corticosteroid use as reported to the ISARIC-WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and percentage of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 who received corticosteroids by time period and by WHO geographic region. Results: Among 434 851 patients with confirmed severe or critical COVID-19 for whom receipt of corticosteroids could be ascertained (median [IQR] age, 61.0 [48.0-74.0] years; 53.0% male), 174 307 (40.1%) received corticosteroids during the study period. Of the participants in clinical trials that informed the guideline, 91.6% were recruited from the United Kingdom. In all regions, corticosteroid use for severe COVID-19 increased, but this increase corresponded to the timing of the RECOVERY trial (time-interruption coefficient 1.0 [95% CI, 0.9-1.2]) and WHO guideline (time-interruption coefficient 1.9 [95% CI, 1.7-2.0]) publications only in Europe. At the end of the study period, corticosteroid use for treatment of severe COVID-19 was highest in the Americas (5421 of 6095 [88.9%]; 95% CI, 87.7-90.2) and lowest in Africa (31 588 of 185 191 [17.1%]; 95% CI, 16.8-17.3). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cohort study showed that implementation of the guidelines for use of corticosteroids in the treatment of severe COVID-19 varied geographically. Uptake of corticosteroid treatment was lower in regions with limited clinical trial involvement. Improving research diversity and representativeness may facilitate timely knowledge uptake and guideline implementation.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the mega randomised registry trial comparing conservative vs. liberal oxygenation targets in adults with sepsis in the intensive care unit (Mega-ROX Sepsis).

Background: The effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults with sepsis receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is uncertain. Objective: The objective of this study was to summarise the protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Mega-ROX Sepsis trial. Design setting and participants: The Mega-ROX Sepsis trial is an international randomised clinical trial that will be conducted within an overarching 40,000-patient registry-embedded clinical trial comparing conservative and liberal ICU oxygen therapy regimens. We anticipate that between 10,000 and 13,000 patients with sepsis who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU will be enrolled in this trial. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is in-hospital all-cause mortality up to 90 days from the date of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include duration of survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, and the proportion of patients discharged home. Results and conclusions: Mega-ROX Sepsis will compare the effect of conservative vs. liberal oxygen therapy on 90-day in-hospital mortality in adults with sepsis who are receiving unplanned invasive mechanical ventilation in the ICU. The protocol and a prespecified approach to analyses are reported here to mitigate analysis bias.

Intravenous Vitamin C for Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: Two Harmonized Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: The efficacy of vitamin C for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether vitamin C improves outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two prospectively harmonized randomized clinical trials enrolled critically ill patients receiving organ support in intensive care units (90 sites) and patients who were not critically ill (40 sites) between July 23, 2020, and July 15, 2022, on 4 continents. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive vitamin C administered intravenously or control (placebo or no vitamin C) every 6 hours for 96 hours (maximum of 16 doses). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of organ support-free days defined as days alive and free of respiratory and cardiovascular organ support in the intensive care unit up to day 21 and survival to hospital discharge. Values ranged from -1 organ support-free days for patients experiencing in-hospital death to 22 organ support-free days for those who survived without needing organ support. The primary analysis used a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented efficacy (improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both), an OR less than 1 represented harm, and an OR less than 1.2 represented futility. Results: Enrollment was terminated after statistical triggers for harm and futility were met. The trials had primary outcome data for 1568 critically ill patients (1037 in the vitamin C group and 531 in the control group; median age, 60 years [IQR, 50-70 years]; 35.9% were female) and 1022 patients who were not critically ill (456 in the vitamin C group and 566 in the control group; median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-72 years]; 39.6% were female). Among critically ill patients, the median number of organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the vitamin C group vs 10 (IQR, -1 to 17 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.88 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.73 to 1.06]) and the posterior probabilities were 8.6% (efficacy), 91.4% (harm), and 99.9% (futility). Among patients who were not critically ill, the median number of organ support-free days was 22 (IQR, 18 to 22 days) for the vitamin C group vs 22 (IQR, 21 to 22 days) for the control group (adjusted proportional OR, 0.80 [95% CrI, 0.60 to 1.01]) and the posterior probabilities were 2.9% (efficacy), 97.1% (harm), and greater than 99.9% (futility). Among critically ill patients, survival to hospital discharge was 61.9% (642/1037) for the vitamin C group vs 64.6% (343/531) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.92 [95% CrI, 0.73 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 24.0% for efficacy. Among patients who were not critically ill, survival to hospital discharge was 85.1% (388/456) for the vitamin C group vs 86.6% (490/566) for the control group (adjusted OR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61 to 1.17]) and the posterior probability was 17.8% for efficacy. Conclusions and Relevance: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19, vitamin C had low probability of improving the primary composite outcome of organ support-free days and hospital survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04401150 (LOVIT-COVID) and NCT02735707 (REMAP-CAP).

Liver injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An International observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Using a large dataset, we evaluated prevalence and severity of alterations in liver enzymes in COVID-19 and association with patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: We included hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) database. Key exposure was baseline liver enzymes (AST, ALT, bilirubin). Patients were assigned Liver Injury Classification score based on 3 components of enzymes at admission: Normal; Stage I) Liver injury: any component between 1-3x upper limit of normal (ULN); Stage II) Severe liver injury: any component ≥3x ULN. Outcomes were hospital mortality, utilization of selected resources, complications, and durations of hospital and ICU stay. Analyses used logistic regression with associations expressed as adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Of 17,531 included patients, 46.2% (8099) and 8.2% (1430) of patients had stage 1 and 2 liver injury respectively. Compared to normal, stages 1 and 2 were associated with higher odds of mortality (OR 1.53 [1.37-1.71]; OR 2.50 [2.10-2.96]), ICU admission (OR 1.63 [1.48-1.79]; OR 1.90 [1.62-2.23]), and invasive mechanical ventilation (OR 1.43 [1.27-1.70]; OR 1.95 (1.55-2.45). Stages 1 and 2 were also associated with higher odds of developing sepsis (OR 1.38 [1.27-1.50]; OR 1.46 [1.25-1.70]), acute kidney injury (OR 1.13 [1.00-1.27]; OR 1.59 [1.32-1.91]), and acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR 1.38 [1.22-1.55]; OR 1.80 [1.49-2.17]). CONCLUSIONS: Liver enzyme abnormalities are common among COVID-19 patients and associated with worse outcomes.

Severity and outcomes of Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 compared to Delta variant and severity of Omicron sublineages: a systematic review and metanalysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare severity and clinical outcomes from Omicron as compared with the Delta variant and to compare outcomes between Omicron sublineages. METHODS: We searched the WHO COVID-19 Research database for studies that compared clinical outcomes for patients with Omicron variant and the Delta variant, and separately Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates of relative risk (RR) between variants and sublineages. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the I2 index. Risk of bias was assessed using the tool developed by the Clinical Advances through Research and Information Translation team. RESULTS: Our search identified 1494 studies and 42 met the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies were published as preprints. Of the 42 studies, 29 adjusted for vaccination status; 12 had no adjustment; and for 1, the adjustment was unclear. Three of the included studies compared the sublineages of Omicron BA.1 versus BA.2. As compared with Delta, individuals infected with Omicron had 61% lower risk of death (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.46) and 56% lower risk of hospitalisation (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.56). Omicron was similarly associated with lower risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, oxygen therapy, and non-invasive and invasive ventilation. The pooled risk ratio for the outcome of hospitalisation when comparing sublineages BA.1 versus BA.2 was 0.55 (95% 0.23 to 1.30). DISCUSSION: Omicron variant was associated with lower risk of hospitalisation, ICU admission, oxygen therapy, ventilation and death as compared with Delta. There was no difference in the risk of hospitalisation between Omicron sublineages BA.1 and BA.2. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022310880.

Determinants of Implementation of a Critical Care Registry in Asia: Lessons From a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The Collaboration for Research, Implementation, and Training in Critical Care in Asia (CCA) is implementing a critical care registry to capture real-time data to facilitate service evaluation, quality improvement, and clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine stakeholder perspectives on the determinants of implementation of the registry by examining the processes of diffusion, dissemination, and sustainability. METHODS: This study is a qualitative phenomenological inquiry using semistructured interviews with stakeholders involved in registry design, implementation, and use in 4 South Asian countries. The conceptual model of diffusion, dissemination, and sustainability of innovations in health service delivery guided interviews and analysis. Interviews were coded using the Rapid Identification of Themes from Audio recordings procedure and were analyzed based on the constant comparison approach. RESULTS: A total of 32 stakeholders were interviewed. Analysis of stakeholder accounts identified 3 key themes: innovation-system fit; influence of champions; and access to resources and expertise. Determinants of implementation included data sharing, research experience, system resilience, communication and networks, and relative advantage and adaptability. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the registry has been possible due to efforts to increase the innovation-system fit, influence of motivated champions, and the support offered by access to resources and expertise. The reliance on individuals and the priorities of other health care actors pose a risk to sustainability.

Intravenous Vitamin C in Adults with Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Studies that have evaluated the use of intravenous vitamin C in adults with sepsis who were receiving vasopressor therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU) have shown mixed results with respect to the risk of death and organ dysfunction. METHODS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned adults who had been in the ICU for no longer than 24 hours, who had proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis, and who were receiving a vasopressor to receive an infusion of either vitamin C (at a dose of 50 mg per kilogram of body weight) or matched placebo administered every 6 hours for up to 96 hours. The primary outcome was a composite of death or persistent organ dysfunction (defined by the use of vasopressors, invasive mechanical ventilation, or new renal-replacement therapy) on day 28. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients underwent randomization (435 to the vitamin C group and 437 to the control group). The primary outcome occurred in 191 of 429 patients (44.5%) in the vitamin C group and in 167 of 434 patients (38.5%) in the control group (risk ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.40; P = 0.01). At 28 days, death had occurred in 152 of 429 patients (35.4%) in the vitamin C group and in 137 of 434 patients (31.6%) in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.40) and persistent organ dysfunction in 39 of 429 patients (9.1%) and 30 of 434 patients (6.9%), respectively (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.05). Findings were similar in the two groups regarding organ-dysfunction scores, biomarkers, 6-month survival, health-related quality of life, stage 3 acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemic episodes. In the vitamin C group, one patient had a severe hypoglycemic episode and another had a serious anaphylaxis event. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with sepsis receiving vasopressor therapy in the ICU, those who received intravenous vitamin C had a higher risk of death or persistent organ dysfunction at 28 days than those who received placebo. (Funded by the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation; LOVIT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03680274.).

Hydroxychloroquine plus personal protective equipment versus personal protective equipment alone for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers: a multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial from India.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine when used with personal protective equipment reduces the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among healthcare workers in comparison to the use of personal protective equipment alone. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel-group, open-label randomised trial. Enrolment started on 29 June 2020 and stopped on 4 February 2021. Participants randomised in HydrOxychloroquine Prophylaxis Evaluation were followed for 6 months. SETTING: 9 hospitals across India. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare workers in an environment with exposure to COVID-19 were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to hydroxychloroquine plus use of personal protective equipment or personal protective equipment alone. 886 participants were screened and 416 randomised (213 hydroxychloroquine arm and 203 personal protective equipment). INTERVENTION: Participants in intervention arm received 800 mg of hydroxychloroquine on day of randomisation and then 400 mg once a week for 12 weeks in addition to the use of personal protective equipment. In the control arm, participants continued to use personal protective equipment alone. MAIN OUTCOME: Proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the 6 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Participants were young (mean age 32.1 years, SD 9.1 years) with low-comorbid burden. 47.4% were female. In the 6 months after randomisation (primary analysis population=413), 11 participants assigned to the hydroxychloroquine group and 12 participants assigned to the standard practice group met the primary endpoint (5.2% vs 5.9%; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.07, p=0.72). There was no heterogeneity of treatment effect in any prespecified subgroup. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes. The adverse event rates were 9.9% and 6.9% in the hydroxychloroquine and standard practice arms, respectively. There were no serious adverse events in either group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hydroxychloroquine along with personal protective equipment was not superior to personal protective equipment alone on the proportion of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. Definitive conclusions are precluded as the trial stopped early for futility, and hence was underpowered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2020/05/025067.

Barriers and facilitators to the conduct of critical care research in low and lower-middle income countries: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in health-related outcomes for critically ill adults in low and lower-middle income countries need systematic investments in research capacity and infrastructure. High-quality research has been shown to strengthen health systems; yet, research contributions from these regions remain negligible or absent. We undertook a scoping review to describe barriers and facilitators for the conduct of critical care research. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE up to December 2021 using a strategy that combined keyword and controlled vocabulary terms. We included original studies that reported on barriers or facilitators to the conduct of critical care research in these settings. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles and abstracts, and where necessary, the full-text to select eligible studies. For each study, reviewers independently extracted data using a standardized data extraction form. Barriers and facilitators were classified along the lines of a previous review and based on additional themes that emerged. Study quality was assessed using appropriate tools. RESULTS: We identified 2693 citations, evaluated 49 studies and identified 6 for inclusion. Of the included studies, four were qualitative, one was a cross-sectional survey and one was reported as an 'analysis'. The total number of participants ranged from 20-100 and included physicians, nurses, allied healthcare workers and researchers. Barriers identified included limited funding, poor institutional & national investment, inadequate access to mentors, absence of training in research methods, limited research support staff, and absence of statistical support. Our review identified potential solutions such as developing a mentorship network, streamlining of regulatory processes, implementing a centralized institutional research agenda, developing a core-outcome dataset and enhancing access to low-cost technology. CONCLUSION: Our scoping review highlights important barriers to the conduct of critical care research in low and lower-middle income countries, identifies potential solutions, and informs researchers, policymakers and governments on the steps necessary for strengthening research systems.

Lessening Organ Dysfunction With Vitamin C (LOVIT) Trial: Statistical Analysis Plan.

BACKGROUND: The LOVIT (Lessening Organ Dysfunction with Vitamin C) trial is a blinded multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing high-dose intravenous vitamin C to placebo in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis and receiving a vasopressor. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe a prespecified statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the LOVIT trial prior to unblinding and locking of the trial database. METHODS: The SAP was designed by the LOVIT principal investigators and statisticians, and approved by the steering committee and coinvestigators. The SAP defines the primary and secondary outcomes, and describes the planned primary, secondary, and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: The SAP includes a draft participant flow diagram, tables, and planned figures. The primary outcome is a composite of mortality and persistent organ dysfunction (receipt of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or new renal replacement therapy) at 28 days, where day 1 is the day of randomization. All analyses will use a frequentist statistical framework. The analysis of the primary outcome will estimate the risk ratio and 95% CI in a generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution and log link, with site as a random effect. We will perform a secondary analysis adjusting for prespecified baseline clinical variables. Subgroup analyses will include age, sex, frailty, severity of illness, Sepsis-3 definition of septic shock, baseline ascorbic acid level, and COVID-19 status. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an SAP for the LOVIT trial and will adhere to it in the analysis phase. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36261.

Estimates of Sepsis Prevalence and Outcomes in Adult Patients in the ICU in India: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a global health problem. Limited data exist on the prevalence of sepsis using current definitions in ICUs in India. RESEARCH QUESTION: In adult patients admitted to ICUs in India, what is the prevalence of sepsis using the previous (Second International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock [Sepsis-2]) and current (Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock [Sepsis-3]) definitions? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Prospective, observational, multicentre, 1-day, cross-sectional study. The primary outcome was the sepsis prevalence using both the Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 definitions and their concordance (using Cohen's κ coefficient). Additional outcomes included reporting on current microbiological characteristics, antimicrobial use, multidrug-resistant infections, and 30-day discharge and mortality status in patients with sepsis. RESULTS: A total of 35 ICUs (85.7% private, 14.3% public) participated, enrolling 680 patients (median age, 60 years [interquartile range, 24 years]; 62.1% men). The most common primary diagnosis was renal disease, and common comorbidities were diabetes (44.0%) and chronic renal failure (11.6%). The sepsis prevalence on the study day was 382 of 677 patients (56.4%). Prevalence by Sepsis-3 and Sepsis-2 definitions was 33.2% and 46.2%, respectively, with minimal concordance (κ = 0.32). In patients with sepsis, the most common microorganisms were bacterial (77.9%) followed by fungal (14.1%) infections. Approximately 45% of infections were caused by multidrug-resistant organisms. Mortality at 30 days after the study day (27.6% vs 5.3%; P < .01) and rates of discharge against medical advice (12.8% vs 4.9%; P < .01) were significantly higher in the sepsis cohort compared with the cohort without sepsis, respectively. INTERPRETATION: This multicenter point prevalence study in Indian ICUs showed a high burden of sepsis using both Sepsis-2 and Sepsis-3 criteria, with associated high rates of antimicrobial resistance and mortality. These findings have implications for public health and future research.

Impact of COVID-19 on non-COVID intensive care unit service utilization, case mix and outcomes: A registry-based analysis from India.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been responsible for over 3.4 million deaths globally and over 25 million cases in India. As part of the response, India imposed a nation-wide lockdown and prioritized COVID-19 care in hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs). Leveraging data from the Indian Registry of IntenSive care, we sought to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care service utilization, case-mix, and clinical outcomes in non-COVID ICUs.  Methods: We included all consecutive patients admitted between 1 st October 2019 and 27 th September 2020. Data were extracted from the registry database and included patients admitted to the non-COVID or general ICUs at each of the sites. Outcomes included measures of resource-availability, utilisation, case-mix, acuity, and demand for ICU beds. We used a Mann-Whitney test to compare the pre-pandemic period (October 2019 - February 2020) to the pandemic period (March-September 2020). In addition, we also compared the period of intense lockdown (March-May 31 st 2020) with the pre-pandemic period. Results: There were 3424 patient encounters in the pre-pandemic period and 3524 encounters in the pandemic period. Comparing these periods, weekly admissions declined (median [Q1 Q3] 160 [145,168] to 113 [98.5,134]; p=0.00002); unit turnover declined (median [Q1 Q3] 12.1 [11.32,13] to 8.58 [7.24,10], p<0.00001), and APACHE II score increased (median [Q1 Q3] 19 [19,20] to 21 [20,22] ; p<0.00001). Unadjusted ICU mortality increased (9.3% to 11.7%, p=0.01519) and the length of ICU stay was similar (median [Q1 Q3] 2.11 [2, 2] vs. 2.24 [2, 3] days; p=0.15096). Conclusion: Our registry-based analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on non-COVID critical care demonstrates significant disruptions to healthcare utilization during the pandemic and an increase in the severity of illness.

Challenges in the delivery of critical care in India during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 cases in India continue to increase and are expected to peak over the next few weeks. Based on some projection models, India is expected to have more than 10 million cases by September 2020. The spectrum of disease can vary from mild upper respiratory tract symptoms to life-threatening acute respiratory distress syndrome and multi-organ failure requiring intensive care. Even if less than 5% of patients require critical care services, this will still rapidly overwhelm the healthcare system in a country, where intensive care services and resources are scarce and unevenly distributed. In this perspective article, we highlight the critical care preparedness of India for the pandemic and the associated challenges.

Validation of a simplified risk prediction model using a cloud based critical care registry in a lower-middle income country.

BACKGROUND: The use of severity of illness scoring systems such as the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation in lower-middle income settings comes with important limitations, primarily due to data burden, missingness of key variables and lack of resources. To overcome these challenges, in Asia, a simplified model, designated as e-TropICS was previously developed. We sought to externally validate this model using data from a multi-centre critical care registry in India. METHODS: Seven ICUs from the Indian Registry of IntenSive care(IRIS) contributed data to this study. Patients > 18 years of age with an ICU length of stay > 6 hours were included. Data including age, gender, co-morbidity, diagnostic category, type of admission, vital signs, laboratory measurements and outcomes were collected for all admissions. e-TropICS was calculated as per original methods. The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve was used to express the model's power to discriminate between survivors and non-survivors. For all tests of significance, a 2-sided P less than or equal to 0.05 was considered to be significant. AUROC values were considered poor when ≤ to 0.70, adequate between 0.71 to 0.80, good between 0.81 to 0.90, and excellent at 0.91 or higher. Calibration was assessed using Hosmer-Lemeshow C -statistic. RESULTS: We included data from 2062 consecutive patient episodes. The median age of the cohort was 60 and predominantly male (n = 1350, 65.47%). Mechanical Ventilation and vasopressors were administered at admission in 504 (24.44%) and 423 (20.51%) patients respectively. Overall, mortality at ICU discharge was 10.28% (n = 212). Discrimination (AUC) for the e-TropICS model was 0.83 (95% CI 0.812-0.839) with an HL C statistic p value of < 0.05. The best sensitivity and specificity (84% and 72% respectively) were achieved with the model at an optimal cut-off for probability of 0.29. CONCLUSION: e-TropICS has utility in the care of critically unwell patients in the South Asia region with good discriminative capacity. Further refinement of calibration in larger datasets from India and across the South-East Asia region will help in improving model performance.